Hi guys - they are saying the speech may last at least 70 minutes depending on applause. If you can't watch the whole thing, that's fine - do what you can.
He's making a case now, too, that the bailout is linked to employment, and transitioning to the American Relief and Recovery Act. Just called for a new jobs bill.
The recover act is the stimulus bill - have you heard of it? This is the bill that gave federal money to states to employ civil workers (teachers, firefighters, construction, etc).
Just proposed to use money that banks have repaid to finance smaller banks, and a small business tax credit for people who hire workers and raise wages.
Remember when we discussed that widening gap between the rich and poor during the 20s and 30s? Similar situation he's discussing (income falling, costs rising).
Hi Ashley! Yes, the Recovery Act is in the process of funding clean energy jobs as well. Not sure how far along that is - I think those are still in the beginning stages.
Notice that so far everything the President has discussed - bank bailouts, taxes, etc, all is being connected back to jobs. This is the big issue tonight.
The goal he's putting forth is to keep jobs at home (instead of abroad) and invest in technology, which he argues will increase productivity and lift the country out of the recession
Did you hear the President announce the first lady's program to eliminate child obesity? This is similar to a campaign by the Kennedy White House to get kids to lead healthier lives and get exercise.
Yeah I think it will but I'm pretty sure it's to help provide health care for people who can't afford it. So it's worth the extra taxes in the long run.
No he said something about freezing government spending, he's still talking about it now. I'm wondering what kind of things the government will stop spending on.
Well - they can pull military spending from several places, so my guess is that they will pull money from other regions where we aren't fighting but still have bases.
Not necessarily, it depends on how the government decides to do things. They didn't say they'd pull out from places - I just mean they'd probably scale back in places that aren't as strategically important (becasue they won't scale back, for example, on Afghanistan). It just means that we'd freeze the budget for three years. Not sure if that clears up what I meant?
Yeah (you mean Afghanistan or Iraq?) - the plan is to train forces on the ground in both those countries to prepare to exit and turn it over to locals.
In short, Afghanistan was started because that's where Bin Laden was, and when we started to pull out, security started to worsen. Iraq was after 9/11 as well and originally because of alleged suspicion of nuclear weapons (which weren't found).
Will that effect our economy in a negative way? Seems like it would cost more to pull out of the war then continue to spend money on it-since WWII got us out of the depression? Maybe i have no clue what im talking about...
No, I can see your point! The difference is that WWII was a global war, so we industrialized for ourselves to fight an all-consuming two front war with Japan on one side and Europe on the other. Also, most other countries were involved in the war so we were able to trade with and equip our Allies. It also involved needing new technology to outrun the other side (we'll talk about the arms race during the Cold War unit). So this is a smaller scale, for one thing, and a totally different war in terms of who we are fighting (not nations - groups of people who are laced with civilians).
That was a great question/great point - it's interesting to see when war can be good for a nation (economically) and when it can devastate nations.
Hope this was useful for you guys - I'll stay on in case you want to watch the coverage afterward but if you want to go that's fine too. Thanks for getting on!
Hi guys - they are saying the speech may last at least 70 minutes depending on applause. If you can't watch the whole thing, that's fine - do what you can.
ReplyDeleteYou can also watch here if you don't have a TV and computer in the same room -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/
Hi, I'm here.
ReplyDeleteHey Laura. If anyone else is here make sure you announce yourself!
ReplyDeleteIssue number one - the bank bailout and Wall Street. What position is he taking/reiterating?
ReplyDeleteWe needed to bail out the banks, but it's important that they give something back to the government now.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the recovery act?
ReplyDeleteHe's making a case now, too, that the bailout is linked to employment, and transitioning to the American Relief and Recovery Act. Just called for a new jobs bill.
ReplyDeleteThe recover act is the stimulus bill - have you heard of it? This is the bill that gave federal money to states to employ civil workers (teachers, firefighters, construction, etc).
ReplyDeleteJust proposed to use money that banks have repaid to finance smaller banks, and a small business tax credit for people who hire workers and raise wages.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I think I know what that is now.
ReplyDeleteDid you hear what he said about building a railroad? That's the type of project funded by the recovery act.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and is clean-energy jobs funded by that as well?
ReplyDeleteSorry im here my computer is so slow
ReplyDeleteRemember when we discussed that widening gap between the rich and poor during the 20s and 30s? Similar situation he's discussing (income falling, costs rising).
ReplyDeleteHi Ashley! Yes, the Recovery Act is in the process of funding clean energy jobs as well. Not sure how far along that is - I think those are still in the beginning stages.
ReplyDeleteBut he also said it's getting better, I thought. It's good we're not going to be going into another depression.
ReplyDeleteHi Ashley. :)
ReplyDeleteNotice that so far everything the President has discussed - bank bailouts, taxes, etc, all is being connected back to jobs. This is the big issue tonight.
ReplyDeleteIt is getting better. It just hasn't been completed yet - a lot of the money in the stimulus package hasn't been used yet.
ReplyDeleteHe mentioned passing Comprehensive Energy and Climate Bill and ties this, too, to jobs and global competition.
ReplyDeleteYay for clean energy! :D
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind what we discussed about the Massachusetts election - that's why he mentioned a bipartisan effort in the Senate (on climate/in general)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I noticed that, how he still mentioned some offshore drilling to appeal the the Republican side.
ReplyDeleteHow can we increase our production if we have a failing economy right now?
ReplyDeleteThe goal he's putting forth is to keep jobs at home (instead of abroad) and invest in technology, which he argues will increase productivity and lift the country out of the recession
ReplyDeleteAnd he's promising to make all these tax cuts and stuff...where's he getting the money for that?
ReplyDeleteIs this Ashley L or C (so I can mark it for you)?
ReplyDeleteHe says the goal of the tax cuts is to enable people to spend more money to get the economy back on track by building the middle class.
ReplyDeleteDid you hear the President announce the first lady's program to eliminate child obesity? This is similar to a campaign by the Kennedy White House to get kids to lead healthier lives and get exercise.
ReplyDeleteAshley L
ReplyDeleteWon't health insurance reform raise taxes for people?
ReplyDeleteYeah I think it will but I'm pretty sure it's to help provide health care for people who can't afford it. So it's worth the extra taxes in the long run.
ReplyDeleteYes - they expect to raise some taxes but lower the cost of insurance as a result.
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of things is he talking about that the government would be spending money on?
ReplyDeleteBipartisan fiscal commission - asked to provide solutions for rising costs in medicare, medicaid, etc.
ReplyDeleteSorry Laura - spending money on for what? Health care? Or do you mean rising costs?
ReplyDeleteNo he said something about freezing government spending, he's still talking about it now. I'm wondering what kind of things the government will stop spending on.
ReplyDeleteHaha, the supreme court justices are just sitting there impassively without smiling or clapping.
ReplyDeleteOh - defense spending and other branches of the federal government.
ReplyDeleteSo like, the war?
ReplyDelete:) They aren't allowed to - they are supposed to remain non-partisan since they are justices.
ReplyDeleteWell - they can pull military spending from several places, so my guess is that they will pull money from other regions where we aren't fighting but still have bases.
ReplyDeleteIf we did that would we completely lose our funding in those places?
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily, it depends on how the government decides to do things. They didn't say they'd pull out from places - I just mean they'd probably scale back in places that aren't as strategically important (becasue they won't scale back, for example, on Afghanistan). It just means that we'd freeze the budget for three years. Not sure if that clears up what I meant?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is his plan for ending the war? Are we still basically in hostile territory?
ReplyDeleteYeah (you mean Afghanistan or Iraq?) - the plan is to train forces on the ground in both those countries to prepare to exit and turn it over to locals.
ReplyDeleteI meant both of them, I guess. I get the two confused on how they started and what they're about.
ReplyDeleteI will probably go work on other homework in a few minutes, if that's ok.
So that means they are pulling out combat troops in phrases and using tactical troops to train and equip the military and police forces.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is - this is long.
ReplyDeleteIn short, Afghanistan was started because that's where Bin Laden was, and when we started to pull out, security started to worsen. Iraq was after 9/11 as well and originally because of alleged suspicion of nuclear weapons (which weren't found).
Will that effect our economy in a negative way? Seems like it would cost more to pull out of the war then continue to spend money on it-since WWII got us out of the depression? Maybe i have no clue what im talking about...
ReplyDeleteOK, that clears it up a little bit, thanks.
ReplyDeleteWell I think I'll go now. Thanks. :)
No, I can see your point! The difference is that WWII was a global war, so we industrialized for ourselves to fight an all-consuming two front war with Japan on one side and Europe on the other. Also, most other countries were involved in the war so we were able to trade with and equip our Allies. It also involved needing new technology to outrun the other side (we'll talk about the arms race during the Cold War unit). So this is a smaller scale, for one thing, and a totally different war in terms of who we are fighting (not nations - groups of people who are laced with civilians).
ReplyDeleteBye Laura!
ReplyDeleteoh ok that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThat was a great question/great point - it's interesting to see when war can be good for a nation (economically) and when it can devastate nations.
ReplyDeleteHope this was useful for you guys - I'll stay on in case you want to watch the coverage afterward but if you want to go that's fine too. Thanks for getting on!
That was interesting...I'm going, see you on Friday. Bye.
ReplyDelete